Roger Ailes died
Thursday, April 18th reportedly following a coma due to bleeding in
the brain after bumping his head when he fell. Some people admire how he built Fox TV into
a successful broadcast network. Others have less regard for his doing so
because of the methods and tactics he used -- especially the manner in which
news quality was compromised -- often injected with tabloidism journalism with
which Fox TV network owner Rupert Murdoch had long been associated.
Roger Ailes began
his broadcasting career during the late 1950s, early ‘60s when numerous TV
stations were producing live audience participation talk shows. The Central Ohio station where I was employed
was developing their own network stations’ talk shows in several Midwest
states. One station’s host was Phil Donahue. In a nearby Great Lakes city another corporation
decided to also launch a talk show. They
pursued hiring our show’s host, but he declined their offers. Mike Douglas
became their host with Roger Ailes producing.
Later some
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) ordered corporate broadcasting changes
occurred causing the Douglas show and Ailes to relocate to Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania for a long successful program run.
Ailes continued to hone his
producing, broadcasting skills.
Association with candidate/then President Richard Nixon figured in his history as did
the first George Bush who became President with Ailes help.
A little
history .....
Several
years ago I became concerned about Rupert Murdoch’s controversial actions in
Great Britain’s media, so I followed what proved to be disturbing events
there. Years later I rued the day
Murdoch was able to gain access to our United States media market, especially
given his efforts to gain control of so much media in Great Britain and then here.
Murdoch was an Australian publisher whose
early publishing career focused on “…sensationalist journalism…” as described
in his Britannica biography and multiple other sources. This lesser quality entertainment approach
to news infused his publishing in GB’s media which was less than welcomed by
people there who valued higher quality straight forward factual news accounts
minus those sometimes allegedly questionable warpings.
Then, the
Murdoch organization reputation became even more tarnished due to a phone
hacking scandal and political involvements associated with some of his highest
level closest employees in his growing media empire. This affair thwarted his making more media acquisitions
in Great Britain for many years.
Most recently Murdoch and his sons’ 21st Century Fox corporation have resumed
pursuit of acquiring control of Sky, theBritish satellite television giant, The Guardian reports.
Britain’s
regulatory review is delaying a decision on approving Murdoch’s Sky acquisition
until early June elections. Fox News
sexual harassment scandal involving Ailes and more recently their star host,
Bill O’Reilly who had to resign, has cast a shadow over the British review theNew York Times reports April 21, 2017.
Since I’ve
been following the activities of Rupert Murdoch beginning when his type of journalism first aroused concern in Great Britain….. then when he later
came to the United States….. made media
acquisitions here -- I soon encountered the name, Roger Ailes.
Viewing Murdoch’s Fox
News TV network programming had long since revealed to me that much news
reporting there hardly measured up to valued high quality broadcasting
standards. Learning more about Roger
Ailes politicizing approach to news I expect also the senior Murdoch’s sensationalism
orientation is reflected. Their apparent
support and slant for Trump as a candidate and now President is not surprising
either. At least one opinion on CNN suggests Ailes gave us Donald Trump.
I long intended to write about Roger Ailes but
have increasingly wanted to do so given some of the issues of his
association and friendship with Donald J. Trump.
Several
years ago seeking more information about Ailes I read a biography with content
documented sources. The book is entitled
“The Loudest Voice in the Room” by Gabriel Sherman – “How The Brilliant,
Bombastic Roger Ailes Built Fox News – And Divided A Country.”
Insight into
Fox News Department operations and news formulations is interestingly presented
in this Ailes biography. That same approach to Fox news may well
continue though Ailes resigned his position last July due to sexual harassment
accusations with law cases still pending, but Rupert Murdoch still owns Fox TV.
(He owns other U.S. media including the
Wall Street Journal which initially had some concerned about his possible editorial
influence.)
TV viewers might well appreciate reading this Ailes biography for considerations when assessing production quality and influences
related to Fox’s “fair and balanced” news as well as that of all other news media.
Television
viewer ratings will continue to impact all broadcasters. Rupert
Murdoch’s son’s are expected to assume more control of the Fox TV operations,
so it will be interesting to see if that results in any news quality changes
differing from what their father found acceptable and what Ailes influences
remain.
Interesting post. I couldn't have written it without adding a few nasty sentences about how much I hate his contribution to our world and how he's chanced broadcast news for the worst. I want my rich people to all have the morals and values of the Bill Gates of the world. Ya, I'm a dreamer. LOL
ReplyDeleteI, too, find the introduction of sensationalism turning news into entertainment repelling. Viewers are somewhat to blame, as the ratings show increased numbers watch the schlocky news versions -- hence we have broadcasters, commentators, advertisers catering to them.
DeleteThe tragedy is reportedly years ago when, for example, G.E. assumed ownership of NBC and determined the News Dept. had to show a profit. The American people own the airwaves, so broadcasters are obliged to provide some public service in return. Surely, news free of commercial influences isn't too much to expect. The Federal Communications Commission is supposed to be overseeing and protecting our rights, but most recently with the Internet they're betraying us by ceasing to protect network neutrality -- but that's another story.
What a memory you have - to recall all of that, over the years. Kudos! Murdock has a stronghold on news in the USA, for sure.
ReplyDeleteCop Car
I loved the promise of broadcasting including PBS when it came into popular use during my young adult life. Just as with the Internet now -- the mediums can have both positive and negative uses. The people own the airwaves so we are obligated to police them and the FCC when they lose sight of our best interests. Those who control information distribution all over the world have incredible power. I, for one, am very concerned about who has that power, so what transpires in the communication world has interested me most of my life though I certainly don't profess to be an expert on the topic.
DeleteI saw where Mr. Ailes had passed away.
ReplyDeleteGood informative post.
Thanks for your comment.
DeleteHarvard just did a study looking at the news from various media sources for bias. Fox actually came out less at only 52% negative about Trump while outlets like CNN were above 90% negative.
ReplyDeleteI think Ailes maybe helped create our entire media outlook where hysteria is encouraged and the facts lowered to of less importance. It does increase ratings when the anchors go ballistic-- at least for the side that favors their viewpoint. I think we are at a point where no news is unbiased and headlines are often misleading but how many read beyond the headlines.
Even talk shows on TV don't have the relaxed quality they did in the Michael Douglas era (and I used to listen to him and Donahue back in the Jack Parr era). I have never watched The View but see clips from it once in awhile on the news, and I'd be so upset if I tried to spend time with that panel. Of course, I don't watch any daytime TV unless it's HGTV where they show how to remodel houses. Really like the ideas I get there ;) and it's relaxing in comparison to anything else.
DeleteAs often happens with focus on research in these sound bite days, people fail to fully examine all of a study's intricacies and implications which can be misleading. In this study, an interpretation assuming the media has been overly negative completely overlooks what the data has shown. Just as with a period in Bill Clinton's Presidency -- there wasn't anything positive to focus on -- unless it was Trump's alternate facts which all know to be falsehoods.
Read here "Trump's media coverage has been 4- to- 1 negative, but that isn't really the point"
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/05/19/coverage-of-president-trump-has-been-4-to-1-negative-but-that-isnt-really-the-point/?utm_term=.becd8bdb50f6
Since Bezos bought it, Post is the worst of the worst as far as I am concerned. For a liberal, it might be great; but for a moderate, it's very biased in headlines and what it chooses to cover.
DeleteAnd yes, they could just be recording what he has done and hence it's negative and that's not their fault. The thing is how do we know what to believe. Yesterday I read that Trump told the Russians he got rid of Comey to get rid of the Russian investigation. Today the Russian ambassador at the meeting said that never happened-- that they never discussed Comey at all. So lefties believe the first. Righties believe the second and I don't know what to think. Most of the time people believe what suits their already preconceived opinion-- and that's even more so today.
I understand your concern, but Bezos didn't conduct the research. The research is what it is whether someone is left, right or in the middle -- not just the simplistic conclusion those who want to condemn the media choose. This is often the case with lots of research where the finer points are ignored for a more sensationalist emphasis and over-simplification of complex aspects. Almost important to read the research ourselves to determine its reliability and validity no matter where it comes from.
DeleteI should add that I have watched all the cable outlets but not the big networks for news. I have seen clear bias by choice of guests on MSNBC the last time I went there and the hosts are totally liberal. Fox has hosts who are conservative but their guests usually represent both sides. The arguing there can get to me. I find CNN too boring to stick with it; so most of my news comes from what I read from a variety of sites and slants. My main frustration right now is that there are usually two versions of anything out there. It's why I quit writing on the rant. I felt like about the time I'd write something, the next day the story would come from another angle and change totally. And that doesn't begin to count what Facebook has with stories from unknowns who totally have the inside scoop and it's always about the nefarious Trump and how he's about to be sent to prison. Maybe so but I don't for a second think those insiders are insiders. They are those with a point to make and who knows what they actually know. Only time will tell.
ReplyDeleteNot all media is credible as we all learn sooner or later. We have to make our own judgments about what we consider viable, using whatever criteria we believe most closely represents the values we expect from news journalism. Distinguishing between opinion and facts matters. Social media is what it is and doesn't conflate with media news in my opinion.
DeleteSo what do you equate as being media news? I see a lot of pundits out there pushing their agenda-- covering the stories that suit their preconceived agenda. They are no more neutral than most of us are. Some think if the NYTimes and WashingtonPost say it, it must be true. Others if it's on Fox, that's the last word. Our media does not give us all the news. I got down on the major newspapers during the primary as I'd see a headline, read the story, and somewhere deep inside, three pages down, the headline would be negated. Who read that far? I am so down on media right now-- all of them. Worse is the fake news sites who are sure Trump is on his way to prison-- and that gets repeated by all sorts of lefties. Might even be true but a lot of it, like about Hillary, wasn't. It's very difficult to find facts and probably always was-- remember the Yellow Journalism that got America into the Spanish American War...
DeleteI can understand your disillusionment with news which I recognize other people feel, too. I think that is partly due to the politicization and sensationalizing of news. Certainly there has been a proliferation of so-called news sources coupled with demonstrably deliberate efforts to undermine our citizens trust and confidence in our press.
DeleteMedia news for me consists of the traditional broadcast and print media including those who are professional news people -- some of the latter that come to mind are Associated Press, United Press International. Digital sources can be of value such as Politico.
Social media, including FB, is the same as just having conversations on various topics with friends, neighbors, others, some of whom might be more enlightening than others -- including what I might offer. Same is true for blogs, including this one.
I provide documented sources which I consider credible, but that's just for the specific reference I'm making. Readers can read more detailed information if a reader is interested -- they can even follow up with a Google Search. In any event, readers make their own observations about what they've read -- then, think what they like.
I can't account for whoever those are who you say "think if the NYTimes and WashingtonPost say it, it must be true." I don't make those kind of "all or none" assumptions about any reference -- if other research I've conducted concurs with one of their articles, I may reference one of them. We each make our own determinations, based on our own criteria, as to what is likely to be the most honest, true account of what is being reported. Articles that are opinion are just that.
Readers/viewers have to decide who and what they consider credible by a large variety of means that we each develop over the years, using critical thinking, often employing trial and error, and have to continue doing as long as we remain engaged with the world. A lot of chaff gets dropped by the wayside in the process of seeking the wheat. Occasionally, some of the wheat gets fungi, or whatever, but the whole crop may not be ruined, ergo some of journalistic news is healthy -- it's up to you to find it.
And then there were the nation's leaders whose mendacity took us into the Vietnam War and the Iraq War.....so we must use great care about who we elect as leaders.
I am a newspaper and internet news reader and rarely watch television for news. Murdoch's presence in India is more or less benign and his empire is much smaller than the local ones. His slant is more towards entertainment here than news. I am not very clued in about Fox News other than what I have read in the press and as such don't think that I am qualified to comment.
ReplyDeleteI haven't encountered recent discussion by knowledgeable people about Murdoch's specific empire goals in India. Here's one article from 2015 I just noted in a quick Google search: https://qz.com/476806/why-rupert-murdoch-wont-buy-an-indian-news-business/
DeleteIndia is a continuing growing force in the world, so I would expect having an information distribution foothold there would be desirable. Coming in the entertainment door would be one way to advance Murdoch's agenda in India. This would be helpful toward controlling information throughout the world, or at least to be a strong player. Information, especially through news, as it impacts politics has greater implications as Great Britain learned and the United States has, too. Clearly information distribution is vital as evidenced in Russia, China and most dictatorships which exclude much dissension often in brutal ways.
Unfortunately, we had no good choice by the time it got to the presidential election. Vote third party and throw your vote away. Either of the two main candidates were equally likely to get us into another war and use bad judgment elsewhere. I blame the Democratic party for that when the establishment made up its mind that it wanted Clinton and set up their super delegates to make Sanders almost impossible to win-- or even get the delegates in states he won. Not say Republicans were better-- anyone moderate at all is pushed out long before it gets to the end. The establishment, in both parties and the 'super' media, has been in power a long time. If a president wants to stay in office, he has to play along, which Obama did with ACA when he let pharmaceuticals get what they wanted and again establishment won (for awhile). I don't blame him for it given the economics at the time. It's a disappointing time politically for me with no knights on white horses out there-- yet ;)
ReplyDeleteThe subject of this post basically has to do with Roger Ailes, Rupert Murdock's news corporation, orientation and quality of news they distribute. I think we've gone far afield. Certainly the matters you bring up are all related at some level, but they're much broader than can be covered here. They're certainly worthy of discussion i.e. reining in the pharmaceutical companies, but I think they would be better addressed as a number of topics in other posts you might want to write on whatever specific elements or threads you might select from your comments. ;-)
DeleteSo we blame Ailes in part for this split in our culture? I have tried to be fair and balanced by watching Faux News, but there is so much "crap" that I cannot stomach it.
ReplyDeleteI think blaming Ailes's is an over-simplification, and is a bit of sensationalizing itself that maybe someone other than the book's author wrote to sell the book as I've read publisher's sometimes do. There are many factors at play dividing our culture, I think, but Faux News -- as you put it -- and Ailes molding their coverage likely had influence.
DeleteI only began watching Fox last year when I got so revolted by the constant drama on MSNBC and no balance at all. I was shocked that Fox had both sides presented-- even when the host was always conservative. They went out of their want to get leaders in movements, which also amazed me that the people would go on. Then I read Fox is under new management with the Murdock brothers having more say in it. So I never saw it when it was unbalanced or presenting fake news-- Ailes was long gone when I gave it a try. It does have an agenda, of course. They all do. Most viewers go looking to find the agenda that best suits them. I find watching news on TV only suits me now and then as otherwise it's stressful. I do better reading it.
DeleteSome think Fox News has not changed that much yet, if it will at all. Some of the criticisms have included lack of a clear definition between factual content and opinion, orientation of that opinion, other matters that can be researched on impartial sites that study news integrity, language usage, professional news ethics etc.
DeleteWhen it comes to their presenting topics where differing views are presented....opposition views to the one they preferred, in some instances allegedly have been presented in such a way as to be deliberately weaker, thus less effective against the one to which they were supposedly counter. Anyone not familiar with all the rebuttal arguments would not know that. Glad you find sources that you can appreciate which is all any of us can do.
Well, the ones I saw who were arguing the 'other' side were leaders in that issue. They felt passionately about it being right. Admittedly some were better at spouting talking points than dealing with questions, but that is true of those on the right also. I though don't watch any of it regularly to maintain sanity. I have enough stuff going on to worry about without adding the news anchor's latest hysteria to it.
DeleteHere's an interesting current NY Mag article, "Roger and Me" by Gabriel Sherman reflecting on Ailes following his death:
ReplyDeletehttp://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/05/roger-and-me-a-reporter-reflects-on-his-ailes-coverage.html
Sherman also participated in a Charlie Rose Show 5/19/17 segment following Ailes' death which will likely soon be available on the PBS program's site: https://charlierose.com
Here's a link to the original program length interview Rose did in 2001 with Ailes from which a brief segment was taken for the 5/19/17 program. In the original program Ailes observed viewers should be cautious viewing news -- he should know, given how he was shaping Fox News Dept. according to Sherman's research:
https://charlierose.com/videos/4686
Luckily in the UK we're spared the propaganda and distortions of Fox News, except when relayed to us by Fox enthusiasts like the President. On the other hand, we have the Daily Mail and the Sun to contend with, which are full of gung-ho Tory fanatics.
ReplyDeleteAren't you lucky! But then....
DeleteMurdoch owns your Sun and Harmsworth your Daily Mail -- papers are tabloid types, aren't they?
"Over 50% of UK papers sold are controlled by 2 billionaires:
Jonathan Harmsworth, 4th Viscount of Rothermere
RUPERT MURDOCH
according to Media Reform Coalition in this 2015 study:
http://www.mediareform.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Who_owns_the_UK_media-report_plus_appendix1.pdf
Since then, Rupert Murdoch has been in the process of acquiring full control of Sky Satellite as mentioned in post above.
I know, hardly a free and independent media. But there's still a lot of relatively unbiased news in the Guardian and the Independent. Including endless criticism of Trump and his antics. And right now a lot of criticism of Theresa May and her so-called "dementia tax".
DeleteAh...another interesting topic readers here may want to search in Great Britian's media, "dementia tax" -- health care issue.
DeleteI never watch Fox news. I prefer Scott Pelly and CBS News.
ReplyDeleteI agree, Gigi, as I think Scott Pelley delivers news pretty much as non-partisan quality news should be.
DeleteI find Chris Wallace and Shep Smith excellent. The Fox opinion guys are mostly offensive and every time I see The 5 all I see are Kimberly Guilfoyles very long legs on display. That seems characteristic of the Ailes style. I was surprised to learn Ms. Guilfoyle is the ex-wife of Gavin Newsom, Can't wait til she replaces Sean Spicer (he says sarcastically)
ReplyDeleteThere are a number of journalists with integrity reporting the news and some may even broadcast within Fox's News Department -- discerning them is the viewers challenge. I'm personally not keen on the loud incendiary presentations of a number of opinion reporters, regardless of their point of view and not just at Fox. Reports would indicate displaying long legs (female) were part of Ailes style, but a major concern has been his manipulation of the Fox News Department's presentation of actual news long before sexual harassment accusations there surfaced. I didn't know Guilfoyles was the ex-wife of Newson, either. Trump staff is of interest to us all, I think, especially their level of honesty and transparency.
DeleteInteresting background--thanks for all your research. I've long thought that television as a medium is ill-suited for presenting news. It depends on visuals and sound bites, neither of which is conducive to giving viewers the background necessary to inspire critical thinking about issues. Unfortunately, most fairly recent polls have shown the majority of Americans getting their news from TV. I think, however, we have embarked on a different course now. More folks are getting all or most of their news from various internet sources. That is both good and bad (mostly bad). But internet news is still in early development stages, and we may yet see formats emerging that give us objective reports about events and clearly labeled opinion pieces as our better news magazines and newspapers once tried to do.
ReplyDeleteYour observations, as usual, are very instructive whatever a reader's political perspective. The points you make are certainly very true. Critical thinking is required. If all any of us rely on are brief visuals and sound bites whether it's TV or the Internet, we're not likely to receive a very full grasp of the subject matter. Ideally, interest is tweaked to seek more detailed information and data offering a variety of different perspectives from additional sources, but unfortunately that does not occur for some. Regrettably, the line has become muddied all too often between reporting "just the facts" and opinion, so hope those formats you mention emerge soon.
DeleteJoared: I really appreciate your posts, which are thorough and thoughtful.
ReplyDeleteThanks, Hattie.
DeleteWow, lots of good historical background. Very interesting but the short version in my mind will always be:
ReplyDeleteAiles, Nixon, Fox ...that says it all to me.
Thanks, Ginnie. Did you know -- reading your comment aloud, the rhythm and rhyme are poetry!
DeleteYou have such an amazing understanding of politics and history. I had no respect for Ailes, but I'm sorry for his family anyway. I don't feel he's helped our country at all.
ReplyDelete